Training load distribution by lift groups in powerlifting

Фотографии: 

ˑ: 

PhD, Associate Professor Ya.E. Yakubenko
Moscow Aviation Institute (National Research University), Moscow

Keywords: powerlifting, weight lift count; training mesocycle; weight class; model rates; squat; bench press; deadlift.

Introduction. Modern sport training process needs to be designed based on full advantage being taken of the modern data processing technologies to prudently profile the training loads and thereby help the athlete’s body reach the higher specific workability level in a reasonably phased and controllable manner.

To provide for the athlete’s competitive rankings being on the rise, detailed analyses of the training loads will be made with the load breakdown by lift groups, in addition to the total powerlifter’s training load profiling models being applied to different training mesocycles.

Objective of the study was to improve the powerlifting training process profiling standards by analytical distribution of training loads by the lift groups.

Methods and structure of the study. Subject to analysis were the practical training records of variably skilled athletes including Class I Athletes, Candidates for Master of Sport (CMS), Masters of Sport (MS) and World Class Masters of Sport (WCMS) competing in different weight classes including the lightweight class (LWC, 59-74 kg) and heavyweight class (HWC, 83-120 plus kg).

Subject to the study was an 8-week-long pre-season training cycle broken down into two mesocycles, namely the controlled pre-season mesocycle (CPSMSC) scheduled for 8-5 weeks prior to the target competition; and the pre-season mesocycle (PSMSC) taking 4-1 weeks prior to the event.

Training loads were rated by weight lifting counts (WLC) with the intensity rates varying at ≥70% in the training mesocycles separately for every lift group: squats, bench presses and deadlifts. Intensity zone calculations for each lift group were made based either on the maximum results in every competitive lift (that was taken as 100%) or the best result achieved in the relevant classical lift in the training process within the subject 8-week cycle – in case that the competitive result was lower than the training one.

Furthermore, the training load profiling process included analysis of individual training records with key performance data being uploaded to a template matrix for further data recording on a computer. The data records were processed and consolidated in the final matrices for further analysis by standard mathematical methods of statistics.

Subject to the study were powerlifters from Moscow and other cities of Russia and Kazakhstan; and the study was supported by analysis of the training records provided by the leading athletes of the Russian national team with an emphasis on the pre-season training cycles prior to the Russian, European and World championships. The average training loads were benchmarked using the Student t-criterion with 5% data significance index being applied to rate the study data for lightweight (LW, 59-74 kg) and heavyweight (HW, 83-120+ kg) athletes. The training load profiling data were also rated by the skill-specific groups of athletes, namely the Class I plus CMS Group and the MS plus WCMS Group.

Study results and discussion. The training load data profiled by the lift groups are given in Table 1 hereunder.

Table 1. Powerlifters’ training load data profiled by lift groups

WC groups

CMS

Lightweight categories

Heavyweight categories

Class I + CMS

n=5

SM + WCSM

 n=36

Class I + CMS

n=15

SM + WCMS

 n=20

CPSMSC

PCMSC

CPSMSC

PCMSC

CPSMSC

PCMSC

CPSMSC

PCMSC

∑WLC, squat

32±11

87±38

178±2

138±5

75±11

79±12

53±10

39±2

∑WLC, bench press

149±42

159±47

262±5

179±3

119±14

117±14

84±7

77±9

∑WLC, deadlift

70±31

75±39

157±17

103±49

39±8

37±7

35±8

23±2

Note: WC weight class; WLC weight lift count; CPSMSC controlled pre-season mesocycle; PSMSC pre-season mesocycle; sport qualifications: Class I Athletes, Candidates for Master of Sport (CMS), Masters of Sport (SM) and World Class Masters of Sport (WCMS)

The training load distribution (% of the WLC) calculations were made based on the above data: see Table 2 hereunder.

Table 2. Training load distribution (% of the WLC) by lift groups in powerlifting

CMS

WC and

rank

CPMSC

PCMSC

Squat

Bench press

Deadlift

Squat

Bench press

Deadlift

LW

Class I + CMS

13 (min)

59 (max)

28 (max)

27

50

23

SM + WCMS

30

44

26

33

43(min)

24

HW

Class I + CMS

32

51

17

34 (max)

50

16 (min)

SM + WCMS

31

49

20

28

55

17

Note: WC weight class; WLC weight lift count; CPSMSC controlled pre-season mesocycle; PSMSC pre-season mesocycle; sport qualifications: Class I Athletes, Candidates for Master of Sport (CMS), Masters of Sport (SM) and World Class Masters of Sport (WCMS)

 

Our analyses of the total training loads profiled by the lift groups showed that they are dominated by bench press lifts regardless of the athlete’s skill level, weight class and training mesocycle. This is due to the fact that bench press practices claim the lowest muscular mass in the training process as compared to squats and deadlifts. Moreover, due to the lower weights being used in the bench press practices, as compared to the other lift groups, the athletes are less fatigued and recovered faster in between the lift practices and training sessions. Rated second and third in the total training load profiles are squats and deadlifts, respectively. Notwithstanding the fact that both lifts engage the same muscle groups and the lifted weights are close enough, the squatting practices are more dynamic and the squat performance speeds are higher than those in deadlifts. This is the reason why the athlete’s muscles are less strained by squats and, hence, faster recoverable. Furthermore, in squat movement sequence the athlete takes full advantage of the elastic energy of his/her own muscles, tendons and special supportive equipment that helps perform the lifts. These are the key reasons for the commonly accepted proportions of squats and deadlifts in the training load profiles. The only exclusion are the Class I athletes and lightweight (LW) Candidates for Master of Sport (CMS) in the controlled pre-season mesocycle (CPSMSC) when they normally make more weight lift counts (WLC) in deadlifts than in squats.

In the training load profiling process, the following load rating data are recommended for use (see Table 3 hereunder).

 

Table 3. Recommended model training load distribution profiles (in WLC) by lift groups depending on powerlifter’s qualification, weight class and training mesocycle

      WC groups

CMS

Lightweight categories

Heavyweight categories

Class I + CMS

SM + WCMS

Class I + CMS

SM + WCMS

CPSMSC

PCMSC

CPSMSC

PCMSC

CPSMSC

PCMSC

CPSMSC

PCMSC

∑WLC, squat

35-45

50-90

175-180

130-145

75-85

70-80

40-65

35-40

∑WLC, bench

150-200

110-160

255-270

175-185

120-135

100-120

75-90

65-85

∑WLC, deadlift

70-100

35-75

140-145

50-150

40-50

30-40

25-45

20-25

Note: WC weight class; WLC weight lift count; CPSMSC controlled pre-season mesocycle; PSMSC pre-season mesocycle; sport qualifications: Class I Athletes, Candidates for Master of Sport (CMS), Masters of Sport (SM) and World Class Masters of Sport (WCMS)

Conclusion. The recommended training load distribution on a WLC basis within the 8-week training cycle by the lift groups (squat, bench press and deadlift) for the lightweight category are the following: 20%, 55% and 25% for the Class I + CMS lightweight group; and 31%, 44% and 25% for the MS + WCMS lightweight group; and for the heavyweight category are the following: 33%, 50% and 17% for the Class I + CMS heavyweight group; and 30%, 52% and 18% for the MS + WCMS heavyweight group.

References

  1. Verkhoshanskiy Yu.V. Osnovy spetsial'noy silovoy podgotovki v sporte (Fundamentals of special strength training in sport) / Yu.V. Verkhoshanskiy. – 3rd ed. – Moscow: Sovetskiy sport, 2013. – 216 p. : il. ISBN 978-5-9718-0609-7
  2. Sheyko B.I. Pauerlifting. Ot novichka do mastera (Powerlifting. From the novice to master) / B.I. Sheyko, P.S. Gorulev, E.R. Rumyantseva, R.A. Tsedov; ed. B. I. Sheyko. - Moskva, 2013. - 560 p.: il.
  3. Sheyko B.I. Pauerlifting (uchebnoe posobie dlya studentov vyisshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy) (Powerlifting (textbook for students of higher educational institutions). - Moscow: JSC «EAM SPORT SERVICE 2005. - 544 p.
  4. Yakubenko Ya.E. Sravnitel'ny analiz ob'ema trenirovochnoy nagruzki v pauerliftinge u muzhchin v zavisimosti ot kvalifikatsii i massy tela: Avtoref. dis. … kand. ped. nauk (Comparative analysis of amount of training load in men's powerlifting with regard to skill level and body weight: abstract of PhD thesis) / Ya.E.Yakubenko: RGUFKSiT. – Moscow, Print Tsentr, 2006. – 24 p.
  5. Yakubenko Ya.E. Model'nye velichiny ob'emov trenirovochnoy nagruzki v pauerliftinge (Model values of training load volumes in powerlifting). Scientific-methodical journal "Ekstremal'naya deyatel'nost cheloveka", 2015, №2(35), P. 30-32.

Corresponding author: zhjckfd9@yandex.ru

Abstract
High priority is being given today to the training load distribution models for different training mesocycles in powerlifing sport for the reason that the existing powerlifter training systems designed for different weight classes and skill categories based on the training experience of the leading athletes – still leave much to be desired. Objective of this study was to help improve the training load design and distribution based on analysis of the training records and practical experience of the leading athletes.
Competitive success of athletes is known to largely depend on how well the training process is designed in every training mesocycle. Subject to the study was an 8-week-long pre-season training cycle broken down into two mesocycles, namely the controlled pre-season mesocycle (CPSMSC) scheduled for 8-5 weeks prior to the target competition; and the pre-season mesocycle (PSMSC) taking 4-1 weeks prior to the event. It should be noted that the existing pre-season training systems are dominated by bench press lifts regardless of the athlete’s skill level, weight class and training mesocycle. This is due to the fact that bench press practices claim the lowest muscular mass in the training process as compared to the squats and deadlifts. Rated second and third in the total training load profiles are squats and deadlifts, respectively. Notwithstanding the fact that both lifts engage the same muscle groups and the lifted weights are close enough, the squatting practices are more dynamic and the squat performance speeds are higher than those in deadlifts. This is the reason why the athlete’s muscles are less strained by squats and, hence, faster recoverable. Furthermore, in squat movement sequence the athlete takes full advantage of the elastic energy of his/her own muscles, tendons and special supportive equipment that helps perform the lifts. These are the key reasons for the commonly accepted proportions of squats and deadlifs in the training load profiles. The only exclusion are the Class I athletes and lightweight (LW) Candidates for Master of Sport (CMS) in the controlled pre-season mesocycle (CPSMSC) when they normally make more weight lift counts (WLC) in deadlifts than in squats.
Practical recommendations of the study for the powerlifters’ training load distribution propose to apply specific model training load profiles.